Re: Would you help to review our modifications

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Would you help to review our modifications
Date: 2014-10-21 13:16:30
Message-ID: CAHyXU0waEiiq=wSKVTs3zb3JuBtWsVg8z209__xty1vCW4hOyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM, David G Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> rohtodeveloper wrote
>> So how to deal with this kind of situation if I want a implicit
>> conversion?
>
> As of the out-of-support 8.3 release many of the implicit casts previously
> defined have been changed to explicit casts. It is a catalog change -
> obviously, since you can still define implicit casts - so if you absolutely
> must have the pre-existing cast be implicit you can modify the catalog
> directly.
>
> You may wish to describe why you think this is the solution you need - with
> implicit casting there are generally more downsides that upsides.

I feel your pain. My company just last year completed a nine month
effort to validate a sprawling code base for post 8.3 casts. We were
orphaned on 8.1 and were very nearly forced to switch to another
database.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-10-21 13:47:35 Re: Inconsistencies in documentation of row-level locking
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2014-10-21 13:14:00 Re: Patch: Add launchd Support